Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

[Ian]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

It could be said that there is already a discount scheme for heavy users. Spend more money upfront, get an Epson 4800, and use 220ml carts to produce prints much more cheaply than from the cheaper printers. That's rewarding heavy use. It's also the old adage about getting what you pay for. Pay the costs up front, print for cheaper; don't pay the costs up front, print more expensive.

The cheaper printers aren't designed for heavy use. There are countless posts over the web of people asking what to do about the waste pad. Under normal use, the waste pad would be sufficient but using cheap inks means you become a heavy user on a light-use printer.

Colour laser printers are going the same way. The cheaper ones cost a small fortune to run, the expensive ones don't. Pay upfront, or pay by toner. Like inkjets, lasers can be refilled but a lot of the current generation of cheaper colour lasers have components that are not user-replaceable. Where once you could replace the transfer belt or photo-conductor, now you can't. Use the printer for its intended purpose (light-to-medium use) and it'll serve you well, refill it and use it heavily and those non-replaceable parts will run out quicker. It stands to reason.

I have no issue with anyone using a third-party solution where that solution is not accomodated by the OEM (it's what I do with my 1290S), but that's a different issue to the market being flooded with cheap generics leading to the consumer believing that they neither have to pay for the printer or the inks. Someone has to pay something, or else what pays for progress?

I'm actually a great fan of own-brand goods where I know there is little or no difference between the branded an unbranded versions. I do the grocery shopping every week and you should see what's in my trolley at the supermarket. I'd say it's around 80-90% non premium branded goods. But I won't knowingly buy rubbish and with consumer inks there is no way of knowing if a third party ink is any good at present.

Ian

[Patrick]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Wilhelm Imaging published a report that really shamed the third party ink market in Europe.

If anything, it's getting worse as more and more entrepeneurs cash in on a rapidly growing market - all at the expense of both the customers and the manufacturers. OK, yes there are some decent third party inks, but who is to tell who they are apart from some very specialist suppliers in the professional sector?



I'm in full agreement with you on this. Just a few years ago, photo print quality from manufacturer inks was pretty poor, inks were very expensive and hardly fade resistant too. Lexmark certainly did their reputation no good at the time, but I have to say that even they have raised their game and the quality you can get out of a Lexmark printer with their ink cartridges is now surprisingly satisfactory.



Of course the bigger pro printers do have much larger ink tanks and ink costs are cheaper per square inch printed.



If I'm asked about this, my recommendation is that for photo printing (plain paper printing is a bit different) it's not worth the risk to buy third party inks that don't have an established reputation, especially in re-filled cartridges that have integrated print heads. And that kind of locks out the vast majority of the third party market.

The third party ink industry needs to earn more credibility but that takes a huge investment, one that the printer manufacturers make.

Until (and I think it will probably never happen) consumers see sense and avoid the temptation of cheaper rubbish inks and ridiculously cheap printer hardware, the mass consumer printer market will continue to work to to the model of subsidising the cost of the printer through ink sales.

Patrick - I can't even begin to imagine you popping down to the local supermarket or an ink-jet refill shop to buy their own brand ink in order to print your family snaps, which is why I'm very puzzled at your robust defence of this very practice.

Ian

[lumix]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

One point worth considering is the colossal markup retailers get from selling ink. Not to mention the VAT that the government is raking in. Only a small percentage of the selling price goes into the manufactures pocket. As genuine Epsom, Canon etc inks are mainly sold by the likes of PC World, Stapples and other large companies, it is them that we are really subscribing to when we make our purchase. What R&D do they do to improve the product? As said by others it's the competition that pushes companies to invest in their product and only if the quality is significantly better does it warrant a premium price. For me it's a case of buy what is suitable for the job requirement. And I don't need a Rolls-Royce to run the wife to Tescos.

[JSR]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

I'm sure Epson would be quite happy with selling 10 year old printers. With their profits coming solely from ink, and no need to improve on the product, they would have made far more money by now. Fortunately, we have benefited from R&D and improved products. I, for one, am glad I'm not still using my Epson Stylus Color 600 from 10 years back - I get better quality out of my colour laser printer (yep, it's an Epson ). How has Epson funded their improvements in colour laser technology? They haven't had too many colour lasers from which to make enough money to invest in R&D, so it's got to be those inkjet ink sales again.

The trouble with that is that it's not solely competition that's driving Epson any more. With their pigment ink range, they forged well ahead of the competition. It's them creating the competition that has forced the likes of HP to come up with the B9180 - and it took them years to do it. If anything, Epson are well ahead of the competition. Look at a company that sells cheap inks that have been *very* easy to replace with even cheaper compatibles - that company is Canon. Once they were at the forefront of printing - rivalling only HP. No one looked at Epson back in those days. Now it's Epson that's at the forefront and it's their advances that have made HP and Canon sit up and take notice, with Canon really struggling to catch up. That must have a lot to do with Canon not having sufficient funds from inkjet ink sales to invest in R&D.

If Epson were not in this position (probably thanks chiefly to their high ink prices), there would have been nothing new coming from HP or Canon because without Epson pushing the boundaries we'd all be sitting here with quick-fade dye printers. Not even the third-party companies like Lyson would have bothered with competitive pigment inks. Maybe there's a case for using 10-year old technology with cheap inks, personally I'm glad that there's been progress.

The interesting time will be over the next year or so. As each of the major manufacturers release printers that are increasingly similar to each other, with fade-resistance no longer an issue, and as improvement in quality slows to a crawl, the battle will have to come down to cost-per-print. People will not upgrade unless there's something *better* - look at how the 6-year old Epson 1290 is still selling today even though there are many other A3 printers around. Epson haven't just replaced it for the sake of replacing it, there simply has been nothing better.

If a cost-per-print price war starts, because that'll be the only thing left to compete against, then we could see some interesting things happening. Epson's 3800 could be the start of that happening even now - a nearly affordable printer (particularly in the US) with cheaper cost-per-print. Should be fun to watch what happens next.

[JSR]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

As said by others it's the competition that pushes companies to invest in their product

As I mentioned above, this doesn't explain the Epson vs Canon scenario. Both companies want to compete, yet only Epson have forged ahead. Canon went into a technological tailspin and still haven't caught back up. The difference is not the will to compete, the difference is that Canon didn't have sufficient money to fund R&D quick enough. Epson did, primarily because of ink sales (probably). If it was just competition driving the market, Canon and HP wouldn't be years behind Epson today - because competition would force all three companies to be equally agressive and so they would have progessed equally.

Regardless of one's view of the extortionate markup of printer ink, the fact remains that printing out of an inkjet printer is not all that expensive. Compare the cost of a 16"x12" from an Epson R1800 and an online store - on most comparisons, it's the R1800 that's cheaper. That doesn't excuse Epson's high prices, but it does make them more palatable.

And I don't need a Rolls-Royce to run the wife to Tescos.

Very well said. One of the reasons I don't notice the high price of ink for my R1800 so much is because I only use it for its intended task. For other tasks, such as regular printing and normal photo printing I use laser printers; for 6"x4" snapshots I use a Picturemate (which, despite using Epson inks is comparatively an incredibly cheap runner). If someone was to buy printers like the R1800, R2400, B9180 etc and use them for everything from day-to-day printing and photographs, they'd soon notice the ink disappearing.

Back onto the original topic of HP going after third-parties, I will reiterate what I've said a number of times before. The likes of HP and Epson could wipe out most third-parties easily - just by dropping their ink prices. They wouldn't need to sue anyone to do it. Just charge us the same for ink as what Epson charge Japan customers, and most cheap compatibles would be off the market tomorrow. Pity they can't see this.

[lumix]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Back onto the original topic of HP going after third-parties, I will reiterate what I've said a number of times before. The likes of HP and Epson could wipe out most third-parties easily - just by dropping their ink prices. They wouldn't need to sue anyone to do it. Just charge us the same for ink as what Epson charge Japan customers, and most cheap compatibles would be off the market tomorrow. Pity they can't see this.

Now that's a whole new argument. Why do we have to pay so much more for our photographic supplies in this part of the world. As you say Epsom sell far cheaper to other countries than here. Are we the only ones paying for there R&D? This applies to other companies/products and is what makes surfing the web so important before making a purchase.

[Alchemist]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Epson must be concerned about their design and formulation patents not stopping third party suppliers. Some of their claims may not past muster, when one looks carefully at prior art. Epson is now filing patent applications, in the EU, that claim almost all possible refilling processes for their inkjet cartridges. Again there is prior art for most refilling processes and I hope that these applications are challanged by the refilling industry.

Alchemist

[guymclaren]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Canon have started this trend too. Less ink than needed to print 5 photos on a Pixma I bought and the cartridges are more expensive than the F%^king printer

[guymclaren]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

I would rather pay more for the prointer and less for the inks thank you very much

[Ian]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Can you honestly recommend refilled cartridges to people to use?

Ian

[JSR]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Epson must be concerned about their design and formulation patents not stopping third party suppliers. Some of their claims may not past muster, when one looks carefully at prior art. Epson is now filing patent applications, in the EU, that claim almost all possible refilling processes for their inkjet cartridges. Again there is prior art for most refilling processes and I hope that these applications are challanged by the refilling industry.

Alchemist

Have you got any links to information about this? I'm always keen on what manufacturers are trying to sue over. It strikes me that most publicised cases of printer manufacturers suing third-parties have been successful. The most notable one is Epson's smart-valve cartridge technology which some third parties tried to copy and then pass off as their own. Epson won those cases.

Ultimately, the "refilling industry" is unlikely to challenge anyone. Their inks are sold so cheaply that they don't want to squander the profits they make fighting court cases - particularly ones they know they have a good chance of losing. That's why you tend to see certain cartridges disappear from the shelves following a court case. Unfortunate for the poor sap who's been using those inks for a while and suddenly can't get them anymore.

[JSR]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Canon have started this trend too. Less ink than needed to print 5 photos on a Pixma I bought and the cartridges are more expensive than the F%^king printer

Sounds like Canon has learned from their competition. For some time now they've been trailing HP and, certainly, Epson. Maybe if they start making more money we'll start to seem some progress from Canon printers.

I would rather pay more for the prointer and less for the inks thank you very much

[Patrick]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Have you got any links to information about this? I'm always keen on what manufacturers are trying to sue over. It strikes me that most publicised cases of printer manufacturers suing third-parties have been successful. The most notable one is Epson's smart-valve cartridge technology which some third parties tried to copy and then pass off as their own. Epson won those cases.

Ultimately, the "refilling industry" is unlikely to challenge anyone. Their inks are sold so cheaply that they don't want to squander the profits they make fighting court cases - particularly ones they know they have a good chance of losing. That's why you tend to see certain cartridges disappear from the shelves following a court case. Unfortunate for the poor sap who's been using those inks for a while and suddenly can't get them anymore.

[rogleale]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

That is just not true! Try reading a few of the printer tests available from places like Tom's Hardware. Canon provide some of the most generous cartridges around, and their printers provide prints at a lower cost than any other printer.

Roger

[JSR]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

My current printer an Epson 2400 using genuine cartridges is more expensive to run than the Canon was using its genuine cartridges, about a third more.

I base my costing on manufacturer's stated page capacity per cartridge. Admittedly I didn't do an exhaustive check, just compared the R1800 (that I owned) to the Canon's BCI-6 inks (which I believe are quite popular in Canon printers). It worked out that the Epson cartridges were 40% more expensive but delivered 60% more capacity, on average.

I'm not criticising anyone. I was replying to the poster who said "I would rather pay more for the prointer and less for the inks thank you very much". I demonstrated that there is a way to do this, but that most people are NOT prepared to pay more for the printer. Using a general CIS with generic inks is the equivalent of wanting to have your cake and eat it. The user wants to benefit from cheaper printers (made cheap because the manufacturer charges more for ink) but also wants cheap ink. No one wants to buy an expensive printer and use cheaper ink - except for those rare few who can see the bigger picture. Again, I was just replying to what the poster stated, not criticising anyone. Everyone develops their own prefered system of printing with the printer and inks that suits their purposes. No one's trying to convert anyone here.